LinkedIn Censors Presidential Candidate Who Says Fossil Fuels 'Required For Prosperity'. Boycott LinkedIn - Deep State Propagandist.

Posted by freedomforall 1 year ago to Politics
10 comments | Share | Flag

"LinkedIn, whose founder Reid Hoffman funded a 'Russian bot' hoax against GOP candidate Roy Moore & underwrote Trump accuser E. Jean Carrol's lawsuit, has locked the account of GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy for expressing "fact-based views as a presidential candidate about climate policy and Biden’s relationships with China."

"Big Tech election interference has begun," tweeted Ramaswamy, who included correspondence from LinkedIn regarding the decision."
Reid Hoffman is an anti-American TRAITOR.
Try and EXECUTE.
SOURCE URL: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/linkedin-censors-presidential-candidate-who-says-fossil-fuels-required-prosperity

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by bubah1mau 1 year ago
    I could never get enthused about Linkedin. Conspicuously a tool for work-related self-promotion, somehow the idea of a bunch of people just blowing about their own job-related abilities/achievements never interested me. FB is only slightly better as it's not restricted so much to self-promotion for economic advancement.

    Now we get firm evidence that Linkedin is enforcing a "Can't Say Nay" editorial policy re leftist agenda policies such as green energy. That cools any enthusiasm I ever had for it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 1 year ago
    Cancelled my account 3 years ago.
    Man am I ahead of the curve!
    Pssstttt here’s the next scoop from the future.
    “Voting doesn’t matter.”
    I know it’s a hard pill to swallow now but give it 3 years.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee44 1 year ago
    I use LinkedIn for one thing and one thing only -- SCAM BUSTING!

    The company violated my trust years ago, I was also compensated in the class action, but that was a pittance.

    I keep a profile with very few credentials that I can use to log in and examine the credentials of possible scammers.

    I also bait scammers and allow them to examine my salted profile to meet their criteria... You know to see if I'm only worth trying to scam for a few hundred bucks for a fake subscription to McAfee or Quicken, or can they get me to go in for several hundred thousand dollars in an import-export scam.

    I can't stop them, but I can slow then down.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year ago
    I abandoned LinkedIn when Microsoft bought them. It used to be a pretty decent platform primarily for business contact making and then later education. It was never meant to be a social media platform like Facebook or Twitter.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fairbro 1 year ago
    I don't date land whales.
    I stopped using Linkedin after I replied to a post by an extremely obese woman who said that she was proud of her body. I said that i would hire her as an employee, but not go out on a date with her. The Woke and racist scum criticized me, so I replied in kind and LinkedIN blocked my account. Easy to hack in if I wanted to have an account there (VPN), but why bother? Her body picture looked like a triangular-shaped blob .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ DriveTrain 1 year ago
    Nobody who is not a far-Left ideologue should have anything to do with "LinkedLN," because yeah, its founder Reid Hoffman is and always has been a far-Left ideologue - so it follows that the platform he started will also be used to further collectivist / anti-individualist activism.

    My first impression of "LinkedLN" was - and is - that it should take some kind of prize as the most intensely-stupid site name in all of internet history. The capital "I" looks like an "L," so I kept reading it as "LinkedLN" and... of course that makes no sense. It finally dawned on me that "Ah, it's supposed to be an 'i,' so 'linked-in,' gotcha." Stupid, stupid name - which is why I intentionally misspell it as "LinkedLN." Because if you're going to create a website you should be cognizant enough of simple alphabetical structure to avoid needless, idiotic ambiguity. Anyway, tangential detail.

    The real tipping point - when I deleted, permanently, my short-lived presence at LinkedLN - was in late 2015 when I read about Reid Hoffman's frothing hatred of the personal automobile and his aggressive vow to "ban" them in favor of autonomous (government-controlled) vehicles, under the aegis of "public safety." Which means "banning" the basic human right which is the right to travel.

    Longtime Objectivist scholar and Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics George Reisman is the only prominent person in academia that I know of who has asserted as a fundamental human right the freedom of individuals to travel - at will and wherever and whenever it suits them, as free, sovereign and autonomous individuals. He touched on the subject during a late-'80s debate against a moderate-Left ideologue in Irvine California on the subject of "public" vs. private road-building and urban growth. If I remember correctly (I have the VHS tape around here somewhere,) he also is one of the few who identified "urban sprawl" as an overwhelming positive for the human condition - as contrasted to the UN Agenda 21/2030 "dense-packing" concept that's already given us such anthill-wonders as midtown Manhattan and Talibantifa Portland. (As an indicator: I moved out of Portland in Y2K in absolute disgust after fifteen years there, and settled in Los Angeles - because the traffic in Los Angeles is orders of magnitude better than the anthill that is Portland, Oregon. But the ultra-density stack-and-pack government urban planning model is busily infecting the LA area too, most notably in the aggressive anthill-ization of the suburb of Glendale.)

    The piece that Hoffman wrote was posted at LinkedLN in July of 2015. Using the rationalization of "public safety," he envisions a future in which personal automobiles that are driven by individuals are outlawed entirely - with the promise that "networked" cars (read: a "privilege" controlled, monitored and circumscribed by government agencies,) will be our only available means of transportation. He puts it this way:

    "...[H]ow soon will it be illegal to operate human-driven cars on public streets?"

    He goes on to mention that his "friend and colleague Elon Musk" (note Hoffman's ostentatious name-dropping, also that Elon Musk isn't talking about "my friend and colleague Reid Hoffman,") surmises that "people may outlaw driving cars because it’s too dangerous.” There is no context given to determine if Musk was speaking in an approving or cautionary tone, but Musk's follow-up comment, cited by Hoffman, indicates the latter: "Tesla is strongly in favor of people being allowed to drive their cars and always will be." 'Jury's still out on whether Musk is committed enough to individualism and human rights (two inseparable concepts in any case,) to defend them in the wake of inevitable technological advancements, and his terminology of "allowed" is worrisome, but that's a separate issue.

    I recommend bookmarking the Hoffman post, if not saving the page and its link on your system, because aging articles have a way of getting deleted over time. (Even knowing it was there, I had to dig a little to remember what it was about and to locate it.) His piece is a veritable road-map - pun if you want one - of the truly shocking prospect of personal travel being brought under the 100% control of the state, of course as a "privilege," not a right. As a tangential aside: Autonomous vehicle technology like every other new technology holds the potential for vast improvements in our standard of living - some of which Hoffman even touts in his article. But it holds an even greater potential for the destruction of human freedoms - and therefore has to be approached as one would approach a radioactive power source or maybe a rattlesnake.

    Something to keep in mind constantly in context of the aggressive attacks on personal travel: The opposite of the right to travel is imprisonment. Period.

    What Hoffman is presenting here, despite his multiple assurances that personal freedom and privacy would (somehow) be protected, is a CCP-type future in which the Little People are contained as fenced livestock by the ruling elite of Der Vaterland government, and thrown just enough periodic kibble to keep them this side of rebellion. We are talking about surveillance and control of an extent Orwell would not have foreseen in his wildest nightmares.

    Long story longer, I ditched "LinkedLN" in late 2015 and so should you. And yes, regardless of your opinion of Trump, as Hoffman's bankrolling the lawsuit against Trump clearly indicates, he has dedicated his wealth to the collectivist cause and shows no sign of quitting - and every dime you enable him to bank is added fuel to that destructive force.
    Do not engage.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo